AtheismIs Atheism The Ultimate Sikhi?

Go to page

Well, the answer to the argument is clearly no, atheism is not the ultimate sikhi. I posted this at a time of complete disenchantment with sikhism, but what I was really wound up about, I suppose were the traditions and surface facets.

I still have got no further than an acceptance of god within, I struggle with the concept of an external god, sitting aloof, however, having googled the word atheism, and then the word sikhism, factually I am more sikh than atheist, so I have corrected my profile accordingly!

below is an extract from the 'the steppenwolf', it is part of a short treatise that mirrors the way I feel about life perfectly

Now what we call "bourgeois," when regarded as an element always to be found in human life, is nothing else than the search for a balance. It is the striving after a mean between the countless extremes and opposites that arise in human conduct. If we take any one of these coupled opposites, such as piety and profligacy, the analogy is immediately comprehensible. It is open to a man to give himself up wholly to spiritual views, to seeking after God, to the ideal of saintliness. On the other hand, he can equally give himself up entirely to the life of instinct, to the lusts of the flesh, and so direct all his efforts to the attainment of momentary pleasures. The one path leads to the saint, to the martyrdom of the spirit and surrender to God. The other path leads to the profligate, to the martyrdom of the flesh, the surrender to corruption. Now it is between the two, in the middle of the road, that the bourgeois seeks to walk. He will never surrender himself either to lust or to asceticism. He will never be a martyr or agree to his own destruction. On the contrary, his ideal is not to give up but to maintain his own identity. He strives neither for the saintly nor its opposite. The absolute is his abhorrence. He may be ready to serve God, but not by giving up the fleshpots. He is ready to be virtuous, but likes to be easy and comfortable in this world as well. In short, his aim is to make a home for himself between two extremes in a temperate zone without violent storms and tempests; and in this he succeeds though it be at the cost of that intensity of life and feeling which an extreme life affords. A man cannot live intensely except at the cost of the self. Now the bourgeois treasures nothing more highly than the self (rudimentary as his may be). And so at the cost of intensity he achieves his own preservation and security. His harvest is a quiet mind which he prefers to being possessed by God, as he does comfort to pleasure, convenience to liberty, and a pleasant temperature to that deathly inner consuming fire. The bourgeois is consequently by nature a creature of weak impulses, anxious, fearful of giving himself away and easy to rule. Therefore, he has substituted majority for power, law for force, and the polling booth for responsibility.

these are the words of herman hesse, a german with a huge interest in indian spirituality, he also wrote siddartha, a beautiful novel about a monk trying to find god, I find a lot of his books have great chunks of philosophy that mirror sikh thinking

these are the words of herman hesse, a german with a huge interest in indian spirituality, he also wrote siddartha, a beautiful novel about a monk trying to find god, I find a lot of his books have great chunks of philosophy that mirror sikh thinking

It has been more than 25 years since I saw the film version of Siddhartha. I donâ€™t remember the details except that Shashi Kapoor and Simi Garewal were the actors and that the story was inspired by Buddhist philosophy. It may be that the author of the book, Hesse, had a misunderstanding and did in fact believe that a Buddhist monkâ€™s aim is to find god. However if in fact he was trying to portray the Buddhist path, allow me to set the record straight, that the â€˜Godâ€™ concept has absolutely no place in the actual teachings of the Buddha.

It has been more than 25 years since I saw the film version of Siddhartha. I donâ€™t remember the details except that Shashi Kapoor and Simi Garewal were the actors and that the story was inspired by Buddhist philosophy. It may be that the author of the book, Hesse, had a misunderstanding and did in fact believe that a Buddhist monkâ€™s aim is to find god. However if in fact he was trying to portray the Buddhist path, allow me to set the record straight, that the â€˜Godâ€™ concept has absolutely no place in the actual teachings of the Buddha.

I won't say too much because that would ruin the book for anyone that has not read it, but like much of hesse's work, it deals with the contrasts between finding answers through the flesh and god. In the book, our hero actually meets the Buddha, and states that he intends to find his own way outside of Buddhism. This leads him finally to the word of God, the form of God and the sound of God. It is a beautiful book.., although I of course accept that God has no concept in Buddhist teachings

Well another morning, another day, strange things keep happening, no visions or spectral ghosts, but life does not seem to be like walking through glue so much. I run a small modest IT shop, its not really a shop, it looks more like a junk shop, full of half built pc's and laptops everywhere. Several times, my wife has rang to say don't forget to pay this bill or put some money aside for that, and someone has come in with that exact amount of money to buy something. Yesterday, I should have bought a part for the butcher next door, but it was a busy day, and I ended up onsite till late, just about to leave I noticed a similar part on his table, 'your welcome to it' I was told. Some might call it good luck, but in reality who knows.

As a former atheist, the closest I managed to get to some sort of idea of the world was that there must be universal truths, truths that could not be bent or distorted, ie, one should not kill, however killing is acceptable if say, you would save a hundred others through the process, but who is to decide how many?.

Once you have found the universal truth and submitted to it, life would be better I used to muse.

Randipji helped enormously with his comments about Ek Onkar, yes truly beautiful, could his truth be mine, I wondered, and now here I am.

I will share one other thing with you, as people, we love the people round us, sometimes we may love too much, I have felt, at times an imbalance inside me, I have always felt that I always gave more than I got back, although it is not a competition, and one should not love to receive, but some days I have felt empty and 'loved out'. However, I will admit that once you grasp the concept that You are doing the best you can, and having faith, that feeling of emptiness seems to subside ever so slightly.

I will carry on posting here, my daily experiences, they say that in human nature the search is better than the finding, if the whole truth is only revealed at death, then there is no anticlimax. I have also found, when the big black dog comes and sits on my shoulder, that thinking of all the noble sikhs that gave sacrifice to maintain sikhism, of the suffering and the calm faces, helps hugely in putting into balance what I am facing on a daily basis, and what others have in the past.

I won't say too much because that would ruin the book for anyone that has not read it, but like much of hesse's work, it deals with the contrasts between finding answers through the flesh and god. In the book, our hero actually meets the Buddha, and states that he intends to find his own way outside of Buddhism. This leads him finally to the word of God, the form of God and the sound of God. It is a beautiful book.., although I of course accept that God has no concept in Buddhist teachings

Belief is a matter of personal faith in God. In Sikhism, it's your faith in your Guru who leads you to meet God or have God like experiences.
Let me pen down a personal experience way back in 1986.

I was in the Indian Air Force then posted at a remote fighter base. We had about thirty odd Sikh personal from the lowest rank up to three Sikh officers. Unlike in the Indian Army, religious places are personal matters in the IAF. Individuals may make a place if they so desire with their own resources or get together on Sunday or special days in someone's house.

On that Air Force Station, the authorities had permitted to make a Mandir, a Gurdwara and a Church and everyone was happy.
In 1986, it was time to celebrate the birth anniversary Guru Nanak Dev ji. I being the senior most Sikh officers was the Chairman of the Gurdwara Management Committee and we had limited funds through individual contributions. We took stock and realized that we could make Langar for about 1000 people. We sat down in front of Guru Granth Sahib in the small Gurdwara and made the menu and I allocated duties and responsibilities to various Airmen, Sergeants and Warrant Officers.

On the final day we sent out a word to everyone on the Station that we would be celebrating and everyone was welcome. We invited the Station Commandeer who was one rank senior to me and I called the Commanding Officer of a Sikh Battalion in the local Army cantonment and requested him to send about 50 odd men to participate and to come himself. We had asked one Saint from a nearby Dera to do Kirtan.
On the final day, while the Kirtan was going on and the small Gurdwara was full of people, I was sitting next to my Boss out of courtesy. One of the Warrant Officers who was in charge of making Dal came and whispered in my ear, "Sahibji, too many people have come. The outside grounds are brimming full. We are going to run short of Langar. Shall I put extra water in the Dal. We have enough Atta and we can manage".

I said, "No". He persisted but I maintained that we had made our menu sitting in front of Guru Maharaj and it is up to him to see us through this situation. So he looked at me with disappointment and went away.

When the Ardas was done and Kara Prashad was being distributed, I looked out and found the place full of people. The local Sikh Battalion had turned up in large numbers. I announced that people may sit where ever they are and organize in lines so Langar can start. Once they started eating, I did an approximate count of the lines and found more than 2000 heads sitting there enjoying the Guru's Langar.
When the day was done, we the Committee sat down to take stock. Everyone reported that all the food is finished and no one has gone away without eating. Someone said that there were about a hundred odd laborers who were at a nearby construction site. They came late and we gave them whatever was left.

I got these reports from each individual who was supposed to be looking after each part of the Langar. That Warrant Officer (Arora) who was in charge of Dal, looked sheepish. When questioned he said, "Sahibji, you told me not to put water in the Dal but I did not listen to you. I am very sorry because I put two buckets of water and two buckets worth Dal is left over and gone bad within no time".
I told him, "The moral of the story is that you must have faith in the Guru. He will take care of you".

We had actually fed more than 2000 people with Langar which was for 1000.

There are several cases like this where the Langar has never run short because it is Gods' Own.

A few days ago, I sat here and thought 'atheism the ultimate sikhi', boy was I wrong, well, Im not so sure now. Although the one good thing is that any sense of searching for the truth and following a reasonable moral code is enough to call myself a sikh, so at least I have labelled myself correctly this time.

Everything pleasant that took place as described above was taken away the next day, with interest!. Now normally, I would shrug it off and move on, but this time, I started asking questions to the inner voice, why? Its been 15 years since I have had expectations or faith, is it just me? or do we all do it, in any case, I now feel that once you start directing your deeds and quantifying them, you just cannot help but be deeply hurt when bad things start to happen to you. Does the belief in a god (inner or not) taint whatever it is you do on an almost daily basis?. If this just applies to me, then possibly the title should be, is atheism the ultimate sikhi for harry haller.

After some thought on the subject, it is possible I am dealing with this from an abrahamic point of view, which is where I am getting bogged down. Although thanks to Randipji, I have realised that instead of big bearded man, concentrate on the one thing , the constant truth, I wonder if the word translated to constant, could also point to the word eternal as well, but then my punjabi is not that brilliant.

It is clear that the love for this constant truth, the respect of it, the listening to it, is hugely important, but am I the only person that keeps humanising it, with a personality and feelings and rationale, when surely it is better just to focus on the universal, constant and eternal truth, and accept it. To me such behaviour borders on atheism, as defined in wikki

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists

If you marry the meaning of atheism with the ek onkar being the constant truth, then to be a good and productive sikh, should we not conduct our lives as atheists, as indeed deity worship is forbidden in sikhism.

Now, when I use the word atheist, I mean deity worshippers who humanise god. You cannot humanise god, it is the simple choice between your own will, and the true will.

Herman Hesse, without a doubt, had a huge interest in Buddhism, in Siddhartha, he relates how Buddhism cannot answer the questions for young Siddhartha, and as he does in many of his books, relates how worldly pleasures corrupt, enslave and bring on a living death which can only be left behind once you have found 'your way', like a lot of hesse's books, a quick search of google shows it has been hugely misunderstood, but then maybe that is because no two people could read one of hesse's books and come to the same conclusion, the writing is beautiful beyond belief, but extremely individual to the point that you begin to share your own experiences with what is being set for you on the pages, and you mould the book to yourself.

one of the finer quotes

When someone is seeking ... it happens quite easily that he only sees the thing that he is seeking; that he is unable to find anything, unable to absorb anything ... because he is obsessed with his goal. Seeking means: to have a goal; but finding means: to be free, to be receptive, to have no goal.

A few days ago, I sat here and thought 'atheism the ultimate sikhi', boy was I wrong, well, Im not so sure now. Although the one good thing is that any sense of searching for the truth and following a reasonable moral code is enough to call myself a sikh, so at least I have labelled myself correctly this time.

Everything pleasant that took place as described above was taken away the next day, with interest!. Now normally, I would shrug it off and move on, but this time, I started asking questions to the inner voice, why? Its been 15 years since I have had expectations or faith, is it just me? or do we all do it, in any case, I now feel that once you start directing your deeds and quantifying them, you just cannot help but be deeply hurt when bad things start to happen to you. Does the belief in a god (inner or not) taint whatever it is you do on an almost daily basis?. If this just applies to me, then possibly the title should be, is atheism the ultimate sikhi for harry haller.

After some thought on the subject, it is possible I am dealing with this from an abrahamic point of view, which is where I am getting bogged down. Although thanks to Randipji, I have realised that instead of big bearded man, concentrate on the one thing , the constant truth, I wonder if the word translated to constant, could also point to the word eternal as well, but then my punjabi is not that brilliant.

It is clear that the love for this constant truth, the respect of it, the listening to it, is hugely important, but am I the only person that keeps humanising it, with a personality and feelings and rationale, when surely it is better just to focus on the universal, constant and eternal truth, and accept it. To me such behaviour borders on atheism, as defined in wikki

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists

If you marry the meaning of atheism with the ek onkar being the constant truth, then to be a good and productive sikh, should we not conduct our lives as atheists, as indeed deity worship is forbidden in sikhism.

Now, when I use the word atheist, I mean deity worshippers who humanise god. You cannot humanise god, it is the simple choice between your own will, and the true will.

Another of the most startling revelations for me was in the first like of Mul Mantaar, Onkaar is described as Akal Moorat, which literally means beyond space and time....now for someone of a scientific persuation like me that concept blew my mind away. These guys 500 years ago were describe this concept of the Constand/Eternal, beyond space and time!!

Sikhism, something I dismissed in my youth had some radical concepts right under my nose and I did not even realise.

As for humanism "God" in Sikhi we have the concept of the Gurmukh, i.e. that who is not self willed, and who's will is commanded by the Constant Truth. To many this person may appear God like beause he/she is able to percieve eventualities. The Munmook is the opposite to this, i.e.slef willed and who is swayed by Kaam, Kridh, Moh , Lobh and Hankaar.

Having accepted the concept of constant truth, and hugely impressed by the concept of Akal Moorat, reasonably the next step seemed to be to cherish and love these concepts. However this was not so straight forward or easy as it sounds.

Firstly, I have been interested in the concept of personality for many many years. I have always maintained that I do not have one, I act, talk and dress as I want, unless I am in the company of my parents or my brother (especially my brother!), but on the whole I tend not to hide behind a mask of my choosing, purely because I do not have to, I have no social circle or friends to impress or worry about.

Now if I were to embrace these concepts, I would have to harness a personality to do so, and the person that I am at present, would in effect die.

I have been reasonably happy since the bear outfit episode. My wife and I are very close to two very young girls that have had quite a hard time at young ages, for their last birthday I hired a bear suit (they know me as uncle brown bear), and then decided to wear it for the next 3 months, pretty much every day. Then, I had a large portfolio of businesses we did IT support for, most of whom I found insufferable, and I did all my on site visits dressed as a bear, went to bed in it, shopping etc. Why? well, my own wife did not even ask me that, not once in 3 months, she would come downstairs to find a bear eating breakfast and walking out to his car, and she would just kiss my nose, hug me and tell me to have a good day! Well the reason was to assist in the destruction of what little personality I had left, to be free of ego, pride, and what other people thought of me, it worked..

What worries me is that this new truth loving personality will not, strictly be me, it will be someone else that is actually holding the true me in check.

Secondly, I would imagine that the truth does not wish to be loved as second best, which would mean I would have to place it above my wife, parents, stepson and brother. That is not so easy. Easy with my parents, as they are already Gursikhs, but my wife is not, and I could not imagine loving anything above my wife, even if it meant I would become the most learned man in the world. Surely the more enlightened I became, the less I would need my wife, whereas at the minute I am bound to her by every cell in my body.

Thirdly, having just been through a huge financial crisis, which is about to come to an end very shortly, now is the time to work hard and build a foundation for us both. For one reason or another we both lost everything and had to rely on my parents for help. Now is the time for action, not looking.

I informed my wife of this yesterday, while we were out with the dogs, they had gone on ahead and I shouted Dans name. Dan came running towards me with Alfie in tow, in the distance I could see the flame red hair of my wife in the sun, eventually I embraced all three of them. I apologised to my wife for being distant and preoccupied with god and explained why I felt the search would have to wait. She listened, smiled, and then said, 'I don't think you should give up, I think this is something that needs to be done together, so that there are three of us, not me on side and you and god on the other, and then We can all move to the light together'

ੴ / Ik▫oaŉkār

Harry Haller ji just some comments and your notes in black while my comments in red,

I would imagine that the truth does not wish to be loved as second best, which would mean I would have to place it above my wife, parents, stepson and brother.

Harry Haller ji I believe I see a misunderstanding in your statement. Truth is understanding. Understanding includes loving creation from near and far. Far from creating a distance you instead should be marveling in God's creation of your wife, parents, stepson, brother and if I may add Dan and Alfie. If you cannot do so for the near and dear how do you expect to love and understand the far and wide!

So understanding is to eliminate the distance and not to grow distance!

Note: I will right separately about the so called slaying of "Kaam, Krodh, Moh , Lobh and Hankaar" after due consideration. This is another area which has led many astray as an end in itself.

That is not so easy. Easy with my parents, as they are already Gursikhs, but my wife is not,

Harry Haller ji I see lot of Gursikh qualities in comments you attribute to her. In many ways she seems more so in her understanding than you sometimes. I state not to make you less but I believe you need to take the blessing you have in her and use it positively.

and I could not imagine loving anything above my wife, even if it meant I would become the most learned man in the world.

That will be a state of zero understanding if you do that. You will be totally off the path in some non-Sikh guided pursuit.

Surely the more enlightened I became, the less I would need my wife, whereas at the minute I am bound to her by every cell in my body.

The more enlightened you become, the more you will love the creation of your wife and the creator. Not the other way around.The comment of " the less I will need my wife" is contrary to creation. It does not expect you to become a hermit. As part of creation in the life form we are, creation expects us to be supportive and synergistic with our own kind first and then beyond. It does not encourage gulf formation. Creation encourages you and our life form to survive and use the tools of understanding to do so. This includes showing your needs and attending to others needs and as a minimum in our own life form.

I embraced all three of them. I apologised to my wife for being distant and preoccupied with god and explained why I felt the search would have to wait.

There is no search per-se. The activity is understanding. The understanding is a continuous process. You can definitely spend or modulate your effort towards it. Understanding development never stops as sometimes it is conscious and other times sub-conscious. Understanding can be right or wrong but if you net it out right, you are winning. I feel you are normal in this respect like most spner's. No one has 100% correct understanding and no one is 100% wrong.

She listened, smiled, and then said, 'I don't think you should give up, I think this is something that needs to be done together, so that there are three of us, not me on side and you and god on the other, and then We can all move to the light together'

I thought this should have come from you! Listen to your wife, she may be a bit ahead of you in certain areas of understanding. She has got the right mindset on what understanding and seeking entails for a Gursikh.

Understanding is not a solo exercise but is much more productively carried out in ensemble of two or more and you have good company of parents, stepson, wife, Dan and Alfie amongst many others. Solo understanding is fraught with errors as it lacks cross checks and validation by creation around us.

There is no criticism, only reasoned arguments from someone who seems to have gone down this path a long time ago, and I would like to thank you hugely for your time and observations, it is in no way negative, it only confirms just how much about this subject I do not know, I think sometimes it is easy to jump on something I read here and think whooooa, thats not for me, but then I read what you have kindly written, and I think, no I like that, thats good.

Perhaps you could clear up a point that have been vexing me

One of the comments on the thread regarding the young girl who wanted to dance, was not to enjoy dancing too much, as you could end up enjoying the dance more than god, ok, that threw me a bit, the way you and Randipji talk, you talk of something constant that is true, you do not speak of beings or personalities, but you both seem in a minority, the majority seem to believe in a living, feeling being that you must put ahead of everything else in your life, whose name brings bliss to you and the worship of, brings eternal happyness, I would say I am as far down the road as accepting there is a truth, eternal and constant, and accepting that the respect of this truth, and to allow myself to be guided by this truth will make me a better person, and understand the ways of life better.

This is as far as I have got, I have no huge urge to pray or get on my knees, although, yes, I could imagine that listening to nice kirtan would not be unpleasant, nor listening to a passage and explanation from the SGGS, but that is probably as far as I feel able to go, from a simran point of view.

1947-2014 (Archived)

This is as far as I have got, I have no huge urge to pray or get on my knees, although, yes, I could imagine that listening to nice kirtan would not be unpleasant, nor listening to a passage and explanation from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, but that is probably as far as I feel able to go, from a simran point of view.

Some of Baba Farid ji's which Guru Nanak Dev ji acquired from Baba Farid ji family and later some of the writings were part of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. Baba Farid ji lived in Punjab in 1100 - 1200 AD,

ੴ / Ik▫oaŉkār

I noticed a thread regarding gluttony, I also have a similar question,

is it against sikhi to feel lust for your wife?

Sikhi recognizes in the strongest possible terms a common pool of creation and living in synch with creation. Mating, marriage, partnership are an innate part of it.

In terms of the importance of mating, marriage and partnership in the scheme of things, the so called five weaknesses have a reduced meaning for me in terms of one person's partnership with their mate. Specifically the elements of Kam, Krodh, Lobh, Moh and Hankar. The duality in each of these in terms of a balance between good and bad for the relationship is an individual pair's regime.

Technically there is no lust in marriage. You could be in a state of yearning for forever togetherness, but that is what makes relationships strong not deviant or abhorrent. You can never love your partner enough in all types of expressions of love be these physical, mental including amorous and spiritual.
Enjoy the journey winkingmunda. Sikhi does not have too many hangups but there are many created by all and sundry peacesign​

Respected Ambersariaji,
Sat sri Akal.
Every thing you wrote is with in the Gurbani limits but can you give me code of Gurbani for mating and partnership. I think that is little bit more stretch out of the marriage. Gurbani is full of many code of marriages of Husband and wife The first line is Japuji is "Ekka MAi JUGAT VIAEE." VIAEE means pregnancy or in other terms reproductive means.
With regard
Chamkaur Brar

ੴ / Ik▫oaŉkār

Chamkaur Brar ji thanks for the post. We all read and get out of Gurbani the essence that we need. For me there are at least two ways to study and read Gurbani,

Look for word or phrase hits like

Your Example: "code of Gurbani for mating and partnership"

I don't do that and don't approach Gurbani like that other than for occasional expediency and shallow approach

So I will not help you with "mating and partnership code"

Continuously accumulate one's understanding and use our brain and thinking to get guidance on most questions with the developed knowledge

This is my preferred and generally the way I seek understanding.In such an approach you don't ask for rules from Gurbani or Shabads but use your accumulated understanding of all you have understood.

In such an approach what you can also do is think when you read a Shabad and remember as though you are,

Sitting in front of the Guru ji

Guru ji is talking to you and describing meanings and the connectivity of Gurbani between the whole

You listen but try to understand too on your own with humbleness and respect

You are not endlessly asking Guru ji questions, as Gurbani is not written for super humans but people from all walks of life

What you get in such an approach is a way of thinking, way of recognizing creation, way of recognizing our place in the creation and hence a knowledge to,

Not waste efforts looking for ready made answers with this or that "tuq" or this and that shabad but the whole Gurbani as much as you can understand

Bottomline: When I was answering Harry Haller ji, my mind was on what and how Gurbani teaches us to see "Ek noor" (oneness in all); creator expecting us to use the gifts bestowed on us to live in harmony with what is around including with oneself, one's spouse/family and everything around; creator having provided the ability and wisdom to us to procreate, nurture and survive and live in happiness, as long as we do, with what we can.​

Once one has such a mindset it allows one to unshackle from little battles (for example I referred to Kam, Krodh, Lobh, Moh and Hankar having no meaning in the context of a couple living together and be affected by any of these if true love and respect exists) that we create for ourselves and lose sight that we are allowed to enjoy, live, be happy and make others happy. Not every situation and scenario going to be scripted for us and if we do are looking for the same we will miss the forest from the tress and be caught in the weeds of time.​

Sorry if it appears to be little side-tracked or nebulous, in all respect I do believe you are a learned person yourself, and perhaps I did not need to write all this. I have done so in case it helps someone else and me to learn through such discourse.

Many thanks for your kind words Ambarsariaji, your posting made much sense.

I had actually come to the conclusion that although a degree of lust should be present in a marriage, on the whole, spending time thinking about it, or allowing yourself to be driven by it is clearly wrong.

However, there are men/women who have given much to this world, in the form of inventions, art, music and discovery. These people were clearly driven, mostly by something other than god, the lust for knowledge, creation, to translate lifes pain and woes into song and paintings, to search for lands unknown, I think it would be fair to say that although in sikhism, manmukh is seen as bad, if these men and women had gurmukh, they would never have made these discoveries and we would all be walking round in various states of bliss with no telephones, airplanes, mozart, computers and email. In fact this forum would not exist.

The balance that Ambarsariaji talks of in marriage must therefore exist in the real world. Does this mean we can flirt with the five thieves, as long as our hearts and our intentions are pure?. Can these lusts be used positively, or are they throwing you in league with the demon of manmukh.

The journey continues, I found a book on sikh philosophy that my mother had given me years ago, and am half way through. It speaks much of the bliss that enters your life once you have accepted the Guru's will. There is something in this I find inappropriate, the book sells the concept of bliss well, it is extremely appealing, but it all seems very selfish, sikhism is most definately a proven and effective way to find enlightenment, to merge with the inner soul and be happy.

But this brings me time and time again back to the question, take two men, one decides to find god and inner bliss, and spends a lifetime on it, and achieves it, the other, rejects inner bliss and spends all his time on sewa, regardless of the consequences, but aware that he is being driven by an inner good, who is closer to god?